Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return payload (parallel citations, bench, decision date, e-SCR link, treatment status) which substitutes for the missing output schema. It does not say what happens when a reference cannot be resolved or when the input is ambiguous across multiple cases, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler: the first front-loads the input formats and the output payload, the second front-loads the precedence rule. Every clause carries information an agent needs to select and call the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly sufficient: it names inputs, outputs, and priority. The missing piece is failure/ambiguity behavior (unresolvable citations, multiple matches), which matters for a fuzzy free-text resolver.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already carries the examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by signaling that arbitrary free text is in scope ('or free text'), which broadens the agent's understanding of what the query string may contain beyond the concrete examples in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource: 'Resolve any Indian Supreme Court reference ... to the canonical INSC neutral citation'. It enumerates the accepted input formats (INSC, SCC, AIR, MANU, party name + year, free text) and the output payload, which lets an agent distinguish it from format_citation and search_cases without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use this first for any citation; always prefer and return the INSC form' is an explicit routing directive that establishes priority over sibling tools. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it (e.g. when to call search_cases for discovery or format_citation for reformatting an already-canonical cite), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.